Discussion in 'Wing Chun' started by Nicholas82555, Mar 8, 2018.
Can anyone tell me the major difference in philosophy/teaching methods of these 2 lineages?
Yes. What specifically would you like to know?
I did a little research and I think I answered by my own questions but I would like your input. In the LS lineage, why is there a greater emphasis place on structure (although important) and very little on combat applications as you go? This I've observed sitting in on a number of LS classes.
The WSL lineage seems to place equal emphasis on both but maybe not much emphasis on structure as the LS lineage. There's 2 schools which are approx. 100 miles from me. I love the philosophy behind Kenneth Chung but why should I wait years before I honestly begin to apply what I'm learning????? If my assumptions are unfounded, please advise.
It is school dependent not lineage dependent. I've trained under Moy Yat, Wong Shung Leung, Chu Shong Tin, and William Chung. I trained under these lineages because the schools that I trained / continue to train at emphasized fighting / combat.
This depends on how "structure" is defined.
Proper structure is an incredibly large aspect of WSLVT. In fact it is built into the system, simply a part of the whole. It is viewed as much more than stance, posturing and how the shapes are supposed to look. It is based on linking the body unit and utilizing proper positioning during movement and completion of actions. Structure and "application" should be trained together in order to fully understand the system, regardless of lineage. You can't have one without the other.
Thank both of you very much. Yes and once again from my little research since you're respond, "it is school dependent". IMO I think that is a disservice to the student UNLESS the student is completely in agreement with the teaching methods. Once again, thank you both.
Hi, i dont really know anything abiut these lineages but just in relation to learning a long time before being able to apply it, i would take that possibly as a good thing. Traditionally you wouldnt be able to apply wing chun in its entirety until much later. This is because (at least in my experience) wing chun is set up to be learned progressively. Refining individual components and changing the shape and overall automatic responses of the body. This takes time as we are not programmed from birth to move and react in these ways (or we wouldnt train so hard). How much time exactly can depend on the individual and how hard they work at it. But sometimes when learning something (especially something that aims to restructure your body and form new habits) slow and steady wins the race.
^^^^^ On the other hand.......Wing Chun "legends" say it was developed to be learned more quickly than the typical TCMA in order to train revolutionaries. This is said to be why Wing Chun has far fewer forms than most other TCMAs and why it has a "specialization" of close range fighting, and few weapons to learn. Ip Man has been quoted as saying something to the effect of....if a student of his at Chum Kiu level couldn't defeat the typical "Bei Mo" fighter of the day he would jump off the roof!....or something like that. ;-) And it shouldn't take years to get thru the Chum Kiu form.
Too often the old approach of dragging out the curriculum is done to keep students paying monthly tuition or as an excuse to never really get to realistic training and sparring. So be cautious. Wing Chun is supposed to be an efficient system. Efficient systems do NOT take multiple years before teaching to actually apply what you are learning.
I expected this kind of response which is why i said "using wing chun in its ENTIRETY". Of course you can apply individual movements and principles once you learn and practice them for a while. This is part of drilling and making each movement a part of you and a natural reaction. Sparring too early may make this harder in the long run though because you have an incomplete picture. On the one hand you become fairly creative and versitile because you can learn to make use of what you do have. On the other you could be engraining poor form and bad habits that you will need to untrain before learning the rest of the style correctly.
The legends do say wing chun is quicker to learn than traditional shaolin arts. This is true. But i dont agree that it can be applied to its greatest effects before mutiple years of training. Traditional Shaolin martial arts you can expect nothing but stance training for 1year +. (Although im not against that sort of training either)
Im not denying that some teachers may withold information, forms and techniques to
Retain students though. For some ot is first and foremost a business so do be wary of that.
Not all Leung Sheung Wing Chun is the same -- Chung Kwok Chow is an example I can think of off the top of my head. From what I understand Ken originally taught in a more conventional way that emphasized speed and power (I think this is the era Eddie Chong came from), and then adapted his teachings to be more internal.
Chung Kwok Chow was a student of Ng Wah Sum. Wing Chun will always continue to change slightly when it passes from student to teacher.
A majority of the schools in both these lineages will be unable to teach you how to fight. Wing Chun is undergoing a serious revolution. The good and the bad are hard to distinguish for beginners.
The Leung Sheung lineage (from what I have learned) favors something called "small circle" motions. When I trained in the Ip Ching lineage, my Sifu said, "Your Wing Chun motions start out big but get smaller over time." In the Leung Sheung school, you train them small right off the bat.
I am a Chu Shong Tin guy but used to cross train with Wong Shun Leung guys. Recently I met a Leung Sheung guy in Auckland, New Zealand who have a secretive closed door school. Leung Sheng style is very interesting. If I had to describe it I would say it's like a mixture of WSL, CST and Leung Ting style. It has some of the directness and practical mindset of WSL. The structure breaking capabilities of CST style. It kind of has the outward appearance of Leung Ting style in my opinion but with a completely different engine and mindset behind it. Perhaps not surprising as Leung Ting apparently first learned from LS. It's a good solid style for sure. It really made me rethink about how Yip Man must have been.
The footwork is a bit different.
If you aren't learning usable skills in a short amount of time, you need to move on (this goes for most arts).
If you have to wait until you learn something in 'it's entirety' before having decent skill again - you need to move on.
WC was created as a principle-based system to be simplistic in it's approach to fighting and to develop and/or improve fighting skills in a short amount of time. This is different than passing on the art 'in it's entirety'. Training fighters and passing on the system (training teachers) are 2 different things and should not be confused.
Separate names with a comma.